|
4.
GENERAL VIEWS OF THE ACADEMY PANEL
In
its own discussions the Academy Panel paid careful attention
to many aspects of the overall problems of science education
at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This was against
the background of the knowledge of the efforts of other groups
and agencies, such as those briefly described in Section 3.
The
discussions in the Panel and the large number of letters received
by it from the Fellowship of the Academy brought home the
point that there is a strong and unanimous feeling in the
community both about the importance of science education and
about the present alarmingly sorry state of affairs. The selection
of commonly voiced concerns recounted in Section 2 appears
to give a fair description of the present situation; urgent
steps are necessary to avoid a crisis in the near future.
The importance of science education of high quality, especially
at the high school and undergraduate levels, cannot be over-emphasized
in a country like ours. Science education becomes even more
important in the-context of the present efforts of the country
towards globalisation and a market economy. Perhaps too, much
emphasis is being paid to the improved prospects for attracting
foreign investment that the new climate in the country provides.
But the basic objective of these new policies of the Government
must be presumed to be to provide an opportunity for our own
trained human power to create wealth for the nation by participating
in and contributing to scientific and technological endeavours
in India and across the globe. At the same time we need to
support and strengthen our capacity to create, absorb and
transform technology at various levels, and this can only
be achieved against a background of solid foundations in the
basic sciences. Clearly, we need to gear up our science education
to meet these challenges if we are to fully reap the benefits,
of the new economic policies.
At
the same time, it seems very clear that the current state
of university education in science, borrowed about a century
ago from Britain and maintained essentially unchanged since
then, is woefully inadequate to meet this challenge. Indeed,
the Chairman of the 1966 Education Commission, Dr.D.S.Kothari,
had forcefully expressed himself in the following words to
the Minister for Education of the Government of India [10]:
"If
I may say so, the single most important thing needed now is
to get out of the rigidity of the present system. In the rapidly
changing world of today, one thing is certain: yesterday's
educational system will not meet today's, and even less so,
the need of tomorrow".
At
a time when barriers between the traditional disciplines are
breaking down, breadth and flexibility have to be key features
of an educational system that expects to attract and retain
gifted young people.
In
suggesting possible solutions, the Panel discussed at length
two crucial issues. One has to do with the apparently mutually
incompatible demands for equity and excellence. The other
has to do with the need to simultaneously provide adequate
opportunities for both the small number of gifted students
who may be able to enlarge the horizons of scientific knowledge,
as well as the large number of students who need to be trained
to contribute at diverse levels to the welfare of Indian society
in an intelligent and competent way. The Academy has kept
both these goals in mind in its proposals for improving the
situation.
The
Panel had extensive discussions on the issue of equity and
excellence. It was unanimous in recognising that this issue
is an extremely complex one with far-reaching ramifications
and room for a variety of points of view. This Paper places
on record the Academy's general thinking on this matter, not
so much with the aim of suggesting definitive solutions, but
rather with that of initiating a debate on the issue among
academics in the country. Such a debate on the seemingly incompatible
twin desires for equity and excellence is essential, and should
not be left merely to the politicians and the judiciary, as
is currently the case. Perhaps the reason for the present
state of affairs is that academics are, rightly or wrongly,
perceived as being concerned only with excellence and ignoring
the issue of equity. With such a prevailing perception, it
is not difficult to see that political measures have been
seen as the only method of promoting the cause of equity.
The situation can only change if the academic community faces
the real need for achieving both equity and excellence and
suggests ways of doing so. Many academics have asserted that
merit should be the sole criterion for admission to educational
institutions. There is no denying that such a rigid rule will
considerably disadvantage many potentially able people, at
least at the present time. Conversely, laws are being enacted
in the country to set aside quotas of various types. It is
equally clear that beyond a certain level such reservations
will be counter-productive in the long run and harm the country
as a whole, including the very segments that need to be brought
into the country's social, educational and economic mainstream.
The
important question is whether there is a way that would promote
social justice and at the same time preserve academic values.
One promising possibility is to reorient our thinking so that
we would be able to view the whole issue as one of equity
and excellence rather than one of equity versus excellence.
It is essential to recognise that for a variety of historical
and social reasons, a very large segment of our population
aspires to a college degree. This aspiration has to be met.
However, this need not mean that all these hundreds of thousands
of students must enroll in the same few monolithic B.Sc. or
B.E. degree programmes. The situation may be compared to that
prevailing in the U.S.A. towards the end of the last century:
by deliberate planning and conscious effort the system supported
a few centres of high excellence along with a large number
of universities that successfully provided education of 'value
to the vast majority seeking it.
In
our present situation, it is essential to completely revamp
the fundamental structure of our university education system.
We need to enlarge the educational opportunities by several
orders of magnitude and create such a rich menu of possibilities
and opportunities that the problem of providing for equity
gradually disappears and becomes virtually irrelevant. We
need to develop a large number of different kinds of flexible
undergraduate degree courses that will permit the channelling
of students according to their aptitude and motivation, without
depriving any segment of society. One way to do this would
be to have a large variety of undergraduate degrees in "applied
science", where the students get a thorough exposure to the
fundamentals of different subjects such as Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics and Biology in the first year and then go on to
learn specialised skills in chosen branches of science or
technology. The system should also provide the flexibility
for an individual to transfer from one institution to another,
say after the first year, carrying credit for courses already
taken, if such transfer helps fulfil the aspirations of the
student in a better way. In this process, the advantages offered
by distance education methods should also be exploited. When
such a large and diverse set of opportunities does become
available, the sensible thumb rule of using aptitude as the
criterion for admission will, in all likelihood, cease to
prove discriminatory towards anybody.
In
the light of the above comments, Council proposes to set up
a special Committee to examine these issues in greater depth,
and to advise the Academy on the role it can play in bringing
about this transformation in attitudes. The Academy is convinced
that such a reorientation in thinking is about the only way
to achieve equity while at the same time ensuring the advance
of science to serve the needs of the country.
The
views expressed above, along with the realization that different
and appropriate strategies have to be planned for the large
majority of students who need science education to run the
country efficiently on the one hand, and those few who may
take up careers in scientific research on the other, suggest
that undergraduate education in science is best organized
into three streams, to cater most effectively to the needs
and aspirations of large numbers of young people. These might
correspond, in purely organizational terms, to the framework
proposed by the Planning Commission Working Group referred
to earlier. In suggesting a three-stream system of education,
this framework recognises the need for adopting diverse strategies
for achieving the objectives of the system. The comments made
above regarding a rich and diverse menu of degrees in applied
science are most appropriate to the third stream mentioned
above. The more specific comments which are grouped below
under two major headings apply largely to the first two streams
of this initiative.
Council's
views on the functioning of Colleges and Universities, the
roles of Government agencies, national laboratories and industry,
are expressed through general recommendations in Section 5.
A)
Patterns for undergraduate and postgraduate science
education
At
the undergraduate (U.G.) level the basic aim should be to
make the spirit and excitement of science come through, so
that appreciation for science would remain with the student
independently of what he or, she might do later. The U.G.
course should be solid and broad based, providing a good foundation
in at least two subjects, and should definitely avoid specialisation
too early. Thus all U.G. students should take some common
courses in physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology in
the first two years, or perhaps select combinations from a
core curriculum so designed that they will be exposed to the
fundamentals of these basic subjects; then choose subjects
in one or two of the four streams for the third year. This
will avoid variations in levels of teaching in the main and
subsidiary subjects. One may reduce the content of each major
subject, but no subject would be left out.
There
is often a tendency to sacrifice essential areas of the four
major (P,C,M and B) to make room for trendy specialisations
such as chemistry, theoretical computer science, and the like;
or such "job-oriented bio-courses" as poultry, fisheries,
sericulture, etc. These can come later; early specialization
at the U.G. stage must be strongly opposed, as it leave with
a weak conceptual foundation which is very difficult to make
good later. This is especially true for those students who
plan to go on to the postgraduate level and then possibly
on to scientific research. For genuinely job-oriented courses,
such as the "applied science" options referred to earlier,
at least one year of good teaching of fundamentals is essential;
this can then be followed by specialisations like those mentioned
above, and many others.
Curricula
can never be static, and should be constantly reviewed and
improved. In the process, room must always be made for really
new subjects, but not at the expense of the foundational courses.
Experimental
programmes should lay stress on open- ended exploratory experiments
using simple materials where possible. Innovative experiments
must be specially conceived and devised for this purpose.
At
the post-graduate (P.G.) level, the first year should concentrate
chosen subject with common courses for all students within
that discipline. Further specialization, choice of elective
courses, and project and seminar work should form part of
the second year, and then preferably in the second term. It
is common experience that industry also prefers students who
have gone through and common core curriculum, with no basic
areas neglected, with specialization coming towards the end
of the P.G. course. For example the two year M. Stat. programme
of the I.S.I is a successful, solid course which has an established
reputation over the years for P.G. education in the mathematical
sciences. It provides the right degree of flexibility and
specialization in the second year of the course. Some other
examples are the M.Sc. course in General Chemistry in some
I.I.T.'s and Central Universities. A similar approach would
be most beneficial in all the other sciences.
With
all four science subjects being offered to all students at
the UG level for two years, we can hope to see such fruitful
combinations of subjects as mathematics and biology or physics
and biology being chosen by talented students at the later
stages. The merging boundaries between different disciplines
such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc provide us with challenges
as opportunities. These should be reflected in the course
options available at advanced levels.
B)
Comments relating to individual subjects
Mathematics:
It is a fact that mathematics syllabi of most universities
read very well on paper; and excellent texts in the various
areas are now available at affordable prices in the country.
The tragedy is the way in which the subjects are taught at
the U.G. level, leading to poor inputs at the P.G. level and
then at the research stage. Classical mathematics presented
well at the U.G. level would be a fine beginning. What is
important is to convey the spirit of mathematics, and to develop
such core subjects as analysis, differential equations, algebra
and probability and statistics on solid foundations.
As
stated in (a) above, specializations should be taken up only
in the second year of the P.G. course, not earlier. There
is also a general need to drop obsolete courses and improve
the content of applied mathematics wherever it is offered.
Physics:
The same weakness at the U.G. level seen in mathematics afflicts
physics as well. We need more devoted U.G. teachers able to
convey concepts and illustrate the unity of physics clearly.
Such subjects as atomic and molecular physics and quantum
mechanics often get short shrift in favour of various early
specialisations. At the P.G. level the core should consist
of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, statistical
thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, again with specialisation
only towards the end in the final term. At the P.G. level
and later, physics students should preferably learn the mathematics
they need from mathematicians. A major improvement is required
in the way that laboratory training is imparted and the so-called
practical classes are conducted.
Chemistry:
The traditional division of this subject into inorganic, organic
and physical chemistry has outlived its usefulness and is
now doing more harm than good. It leads to loss of a sense
of the unity of the subject, lack of appreciation of basic
principles' and too early branching into narrow specialisations.
Starting from the U.G. stage, chemistry should be taught as
based on the trinity of bonding, structure and reactivity.
This is not an easy task, but at least at some universities
in the country the effort to change in this direction must
be made.
At
the P.G. level the core in physical chemistry, for instance,
should consist of thermodynamics, chemical dynamics, quantum
chemistry and statistical mechanics. Also at the P.G. level,
the interfaces of chemistry with biology and with physics
should be brought out in some detail-, and the transition
from molecular to macroscopic behaviour made clear. The comments
about laboratory exercises apply as strongly to chemistry
as they do to physics.
Biology:
This is an extremely rapidly changing subject, which incidentally
should be distinguished from biotechnology! An approach stressing
unity in the various branches of the life sciences, both at
the U.G. and P.G. levels, should be possible. Students of
biology need to know allied subjects rather well. In this
respect it is realized that many aspects of the subject can
be learnt informally by motivated students on their own, while
receiving more formal training in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
|
